Illinois has just became the 16th state to ban capital punishment: Governor Pat Quinn, a recently elected Democrat, signed into a law a bill abolishing capital punishment passed by the Illinois legislature several weeks ago (read John Schwartz and Emma Fitzsimmons reporting in the NYTimes here). Governor Quinn’s statement highlighted the “new abolitionism” themes that are bringing the death penalty down in the USA (Illinois is the third state to remove an existing death penalty law in the past several years, along with New Jersey and New Mexico, and was a far heavier user of the sentence than either of the other recent abolishing states). Having stated his support for the death penalty if applied carefully and justly in the campaign only last fall, he said this on signing the law:

“Since our experience has shown that there is no way to design a perfect death penalty system, free from the numerous flaws that can lead to wrongful convictions or discriminatory treatment, I have concluded that the proper course of action is to abolish it,” Mr. Quinn said in a statement. “With our broken system, we cannot ensure justice is achieved in every case.”

These recent legislative abolitions are a real break with the politics of governing through crime in which legislatures have defined themselves above all as on the side of crime victims, a group publicly represented mostly by families of murder victims who embrace capital punishment. When courts abolish the death penalty as unconstitutional, they tend to play into this politics by appearing as an elite institution favoring sympathy for criminals over victims. But as Frank Zimring has pointed out, when legislatures abolish, and governors, who generally position themselves as champions against crime, sign off on abolition, a very different dynamic is taking place.

Quinn’s statement emphasized the danger of wrongful conviction, a theme etched in Illinois by a string of gross miscarriages of justice and framed several years ago by Governor George Ryan’s mass commutation of the entire Illinois death row at the time. But implicit is a broader critique, i.e., that the death penalty is fundamentally unable to deliver justice and does not provide anymore real protection against crime than prisons do. If it did, it would be hard for politicians in the era of governing through crime to withdraw it notwithstanding highly visible errors, for to do so would be to favor a criminal class (most death row inmates having committed other crimes in the past) over the victim as everyman.

It is only because the death penalty is increasingly perceived as rotten in its fundamental uselessness that the wrongful conviction issue can have the power it does. After all, we know plenty of people are in prison for wrongful convictions as well, many more in fact than are held by death rows, but it has not led to any substantial movement to reduce prison sentences let alone abolish prisons.

Two key features, the prolonged delay of executions almost everywhere (other than Texas and Virginia) and the uncertainty of correctness now associated with death penalty sentences. This produces a punishment that maximizes the degradation of both prisoner and murder victim families. The prisoner suffers something almost as bad as the old death penalty, spending years, sometimes decades on death row, with the possibility of execution hanging over them, and all the while their time in prison appears not to be no punishment to the victims and the public at all (which of course it is) so long as they continue fighting their death penalty — but to abandon one’s appeals is a form of suicide, and act which is inherently degrading.

For victims, the prolonged wait and complex pattern of litigation assures a constantly open wound without any sense that justice is being served, even if their loved ones killer has been in prison serving hard time for decades. This is the point now effectively being made by dozens of murder victim family members who signed a letter supporting the abolition bill.

“To be meaningful, justice should be swift and sure,” they wrote. “The death penalty is neither,” and the trials and appeals “drag victims’ loved ones through an agonizing and lengthy process, which often does not result in the intended punishment.”

How come it was so difficult for states to get an effective death penalty going again after the Supreme Court’s temporary abolition in the early 1970s? That is a crucial question that scholarship should focus on. Capital punishment came back by the late 1970s, but it was like the pets in Stephen King’s Pet Sematary there was something not quite right about it. It is remarkable, in the end, that all the effort of the Supreme Court and Congress in the 1980s and 1990s to normalize the death penalty failed and its days are now numbered, although it will stagger on for as much as another decade or more.

Comments to “Proud to be from Illinois: Land of Lincoln becomes 16th state to abolish capital punishment”

Capital punishment is one of the controversial issues in America and other countries. While capital punishment is obsolete in most of the developed countries of the world, U.S. still practices death penalty in most of its states and has the support of public opinion; there are organizations and groups who are for or against it and each of them have its own justifications based on moral, religious and emotional grounds.

Death penalty is the reason of a short circuit on the possibility of innocence. It also abbreviate the critical thinking of the motive that the accused did not have at that moment all his / her mental faculty to exercise a normal judgement to resort to such violent act as if it was absent of such consequence. It opens the windows to insanity from the
victim and from the judicial. Death penalty should be abolished to preserve the opinion that our judicial are not at any time in a state of insanity.